Judgment in care proceedings as to whether a child was habitually resident in England and Wales when proceedings began; and, if not, whether she was habitually resident in any other country. Held that at the relevant time she was not habitually resident anywhere, and the English court had jurisdiction pursuant to Article 13 of Brussels II Revised.
Judgment in care proceedings in respect of the child of a Romanian mother considering whether this court has jurisdiction under the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption of Children Act 2002; whether the matter can or should be referred to the Romanian courts under Article 15 of Brussels II (Revised); and whether further enquiries should be made with the mother’s family in Romania.
Judgment in Court of Protection proceedings concerning an 84 year old woman as whether it was in her best interests to return home to live with a contingency plan of maintaining her current placement for a period of time, together with associated financial considerations, and whether a care regime at home would amount to a deprivation of liberty.
Application by a wife under section 13 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984
for permission to apply for financial relief following an overseas divorce.
Judgment in High Court as to whether the court has jurisdiction to make orders concerning parental responsibility in a respect of a child where the Polish mother had remained with the child in Poland after a holiday in breach of undertakings to the court. held that the undertaking amounted to an express and unequivocal acceptance that the court to which it was given retained jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility.
Judgment containing the President of the Court of Protection’s analysis of the practical and procedural implications for the Court of the Supreme Court’s decision in Surrey County Council v P and others (Equality and Human Rights Commission and others intervening), Cheshire West and Chester Council v P and another (Same intervening) [2014]
Judgment by the President in three cases concerning applications for contact in each of which the mother was legally aided but the father was not.
Appeal in the Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals concerning calculation of gross profits for child support purposes and in particular whether the loss from one business can be deducted from the profits of another
Application for permission to appeal finding that shares in family company were not held by the husband on trust for the parties’ son – application dismissed
Application by father for permission to appeal, with appeal to follow, against the refusal of his application for discharge of care orders in respect of two children and the making of a placement order in respect of one child and the refusal of contact with both children. Permission granted but appeal dismissed.
Application by the respondent father that the oral permission hearing pursued by the appellant mother be heard in private.
Appeal from a decision to refuse to order direct contact between a father and his son at the final hearing after four years of court proceedings.
Judgment at end of ‘best interests’ hearing in long-running Court of Protection proceedings concerning a 94 year old woman who had previously been found not to have capacity to make decisions concerning (i) litigation, (ii) financial matters, (iii) contact with others and (iv) her residence and the people who reside with her; and subsequently had further been found not to have capacity to make decisions in relation to her contact with the press.
Care proceedings involving Article 15 BIIR and a Romanian child. Court concluded a request should be made of the Romanian authorities to accept the case.
Application pursuant to section 37 MCA 1973 to set aside a disposition between the husband and his solicitor, the purpose of which was to secure the husband’s costs liabilities
An application brought under the inherent jurisdiction that adoption orders made in favour of the Applicants in Brazil in October 2013 be recognised under the law of England and Wales.
